More leftist hypocrisy, nicely illustrated

[musterion]

The post-grunge hipster flannel, skanky tats and Palestinian death scarf are a nice touch, don't you think?

...

 

[Alate_One]

 

[Crucible]

"Pro life"

Because it's easier to call abortion murder than to actually take time to care about the living.

Christianity in America has this growing problem of stinginess- they have argued against even tithing which is one of the oldest, orthodox ordinances of church- they aren't about to do so for the sake of lives and livelihoods of others.

 

[Greg Jennings]

I struggle with the abortion stuff myself. But what is illustrated above sums up nicely the issue I have with many pro-lifers. They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare.

THEYRE RELATED

 

[Crucible]

Quick, there's a glitch in the liberal mainframe!

 

[john w]

I struggle with the abortion stuff myself. But what is illustrated above sums up nicely the issue I have with many pro-lifers. They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare.

THEYRE RELATED

Do you "force" others to adhere to the law(and I assume your view)that murder, rape, theft.........................................................are wrong? Why? Why should others be inconvenienced, "forced," by society's/your view of morality, i.e., what is right and wrong?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Do you "force" others to adhere to the law(and I assume your view)that murder, rape, theft.........................................................are wrong? Why? Why should others be inconvenienced, "forced," by society's/your view of morality, i.e., what is right and wrong?

I'm not saying anyone should be forced to bow to my opinion. I'm giving my two cents. That being said, it's foolish to force a woman to have a baby she can't provide for, then turn around and whine about how much money she needs from the govt to support it. You can kill two birds with one stone by just letting her do what she wants

I also don't think abortion should be legal after 22 weeks

 

[john w]

I'm not saying anyone should be forced to bow to my opinion. I'm giving my two cents.

Oh, I see. Your opinion is that ...." it's foolish to force a woman to have a baby she can't provide for, then turn around and whine about how much money she needs from the govt to support it."

Spin. Laws, by definition, are an imposition of morality="forcing."

Again...

Do you "force" others to adhere to the law(and I assume your view)that murder, rape, theft............................................. ............are wrong? Why? Why should others be inconvenienced, "forced," by society's/your view of morality, i.e., what is right and wrong?

Defend your "argument."

I also don't think abortion should be legal after 22 weeks

Why? Because you say so? On what basis? Why are you "forcing" a "poor" women not to abort, after 22 weeks, making it illegal? Because of your view on what is right/wrong?

You are being disingenuous, deceitful, with this "force" "argument." Laws, by definition, "force" other, refrain others, from acting contrary to what society has deemed is immoral/wrong.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Oh, I see. Your opinion is that ...." it's foolish to force a woman to have a baby she can't provide for, then turn around and whine about how much money she needs from the govt to support it."

Spin. Laws, by definition, are an imposition of morality.

I didn't propose a law. Again, I gave my opinion. An opinion shared by a large number of people. Do you think it makes sense to whine about a problem of your own creation? I certainly don't.

Again...

Do you "force" others to adhere to the law(and I assume your view)that murder, rape, theft............................................. ............are wrong? Why? Why should others be inconvenienced, "forced," by society's/your view of morality, i.e., what is right and wrong?

Defend your "argument."

Not entirely clear how this wasn't answered before. I don't force anyone to do anything. The laws do that, and I have no personal part in creating them.

On the issue of "inconveniencing" someone: who are you referring to? The mother is certainly inconvenienced when she has to care for a life that she doesn't have the means to do so. The American taxpayer is inconvenienced by having to provide welfare benefits so that child can survive after it is born. How is anyone else inconvenienced?

Why? Because you say so? On what basis? Why are you "forcing" a "poor" women not to abort, after 22 weeks, making it illegal? Because of your view on what is right/wrong?

Relatively simple. The current opinion of the scientific community is that consciousness and pain don't occur in a fetus prior to 22 weeks. It's about doing what is best for everyone, in the most humane way possible. I feel 22 weeks is more than enough time for a pregnant woman to find a time to get an abortion. Of course, emergency situations that necessitate abortion would take priority over the 22 weeks deadline.

Also, "poor" was a reference to her economic status, not emotional language

You are being disingenuous, deceitful, with this "force" "argument." Laws, by definition, "force" other, refrain others, from acting contrary to what society has deemed is immoral/wrong.

And once again, I don't make them. I'm expressing opinions on an online forum. I can't say I understand you here.

But let's pretend I AM making the laws. Is 22 weeks of time to get your abortion done with not enough? If so, why? Is it too lax? If so, why? Or, do you disagree with abortion regardless of circumstance? If so, why?

 

[john w]

I didn't propose a law. Again, I gave my opinion. An opinion shared by a large number of people. Do you think it makes sense to whine about a problem of your own creation? I certainly don't.


Not entirely clear how this wasn't answered before. I don't force anyone to do anything. The laws do that, and I have no personal part in creating them.

On the issue of "inconveniencing" someone: who are you referring to? The mother is certainly inconvenienced when she has to care for a life that she doesn't have the means to do so. The American taxpayer is inconvenienced by having to provide welfare benefits so that child can survive after it is born. How is anyone else inconvenienced?



Relatively simple. The current opinion of the scientific community is that consciousness and pain don't occur in a fetus prior to 22 weeks. It's about doing what is best for everyone, in the most humane way possible. I feel 22 weeks is more than enough time for a pregnant woman to find a time to get an abortion. Of course, emergency situations that necessitate abortion would take priority over the 22 weeks deadline.

Also, "poor" was a reference to her economic status, not emotional language


And once again, I don't make them. I'm expressing opinions on an online forum. I can't say I understand you here.

But let's pretend I AM making the laws. Is 22 weeks of time to get your abortion done with not enough? If so, why? Is it too lax? If so, why? Or, do you disagree with abortion regardless of circumstance? If so, why?

Translated on all of the above----In your opinion, which means NADA, and confirms you have no objective argument, and have contributed nothing to TOL.You can provide opinions on "Oprah."


"Relatively simple. The current opinion of the scientific community is that consciousness and pain don't occur in a fetus prior to 22 weeks. It's about doing what is best for everyone, in the most humane way possible. I feel 22 weeks is more than enough time for a pregnant woman to find a time to get an abortion. Of course, emergency situations that necessitate abortion would take priority over the 22 weeks deadline."-you

Best for everyone? You decide it? Why are you "forcing" that on that woman?

Deceiver-you don't even know your own "argument."


Let me guess-it is "best for everyone," because you say so-just your opinion.


"Not entirely clear how this wasn't answered before. I don't force anyone to do anything. The laws do that, and I have no personal part in creating them. "-you

And laws are made by people, in the court of persuasion, both sides presenting their case. Anti abortion proponents do that.

So your "force" argument is quite irrelevant. Anti abortion proponents have every right/obligation, to persuade others that abortion should be illegal-that is what laws do-they impose morality. It has NADA to do with "force"-laws force/impose morality. Yet, you make an emotional, deceitful appeal, that others are "forcing" a poor woman............

Why are you forcing the poor to steal?

See how that works?


"On the issue of "inconveniencing" someone: who are you referring to? The mother is certainly inconvenienced when she has to care for a life that she doesn't have the means to do so. The American taxpayer is inconvenienced by having to provide welfare benefits so that child can survive after it is born. How is anyone else inconvenienced?"-you

You missed it. You say do not "force"...........Why should your view on morality, inconvenience others? Why is it wrong for a poor, desperate, w/o food beggar to steal? Why are you forcing your view that theft is wrong, on others?

And stuff your "IMO," "it is the law" spin. Anti abortion proponents are trying to persuade others to change the law. And yet you cry, object...."Why are you forcing.....!!!!!!"

Deceit.


Get it, Curly?


You can't be this stupid.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Translated on all of the above----In your opinion, which means NADA, and confirms you have no objective argument, and have contributed nothing to TOL.You can provide opinions on "Oprah."


"Relatively simple. The current opinion of the scientific community is that consciousness and pain don't occur in a fetus prior to 22 weeks. It's about doing what is best for everyone, in the most humane way possible. I feel 22 weeks is more than enough time for a pregnant woman to find a time to get an abortion. Of course, emergency situations that necessitate abortion would take priority over the 22 weeks deadline."-you

Best for everyone? You decide it? Why are you "forcing" that on that woman?

Deceiver-you don't even know your own "argument."


Let me guess-it is "best for everyone," because you say so-just your opinion.


"Not entirely clear how this wasn't answered before. I don't force anyone to do anything. The laws do that, and I have no personal part in creating them. "-you

And laws are made by people, in the court of persuasion, both sides presenting their case. Anti abortion proponents do that.

So your "force" argument is quite irrelevant. Anti abortion proponents have every right/obligation, to persuade others that abortion should be illegal-that is what laws do-they impose morality. It has NADA to do with "force"-laws force/impose morality. Yet, you make an emotional, deceitful appeal, that others are "forcing" a poor woman............

Why are you forcing the poor to steal?

See how that works?


"On the issue of "inconveniencing" someone: who are you referring to? The mother is certainly inconvenienced when she has to care for a life that she doesn't have the means to do so. The American taxpayer is inconvenienced by having to provide welfare benefits so that child can survive after it is born. How is anyone else inconvenienced?"-you

You missed it. You say do not "force"...........Why should your view on morality, inconvenience others? Why is it wrong for a poor, desperate, w/o food beggar to steal? Why are you forcing your view that theft is wrong, on others?

And stuff your "IMO," "it is the law" spin. Anti abortion proponents are trying to persuade others to change the law. And yet you cry, object...."Why are you forcing.....!!!!!!"

Deceit.


Get it, Curly?


You can't be this stupid.

You seem upset. Had a bad day?

More likely you are far more emotional about this subject than I, something I've seen before regarding abortion on TOL. It's amazing how nasty one can get when "arguing" from an emotional position. However, emotion (as Yoda said) clouds judgement. And I believe yours to be clouded a bit


You never answered any of my questions. Let's flesh out what exactly your opinions are on abortion, then we can actually have a dialogue. As it currently stands, I have answered your questions honestly only to be assaulted by you. That's normally fine. But you won't even tell me what YOU think. That's a pretty cowardly way to argue. Should abortion be legal? If so, what parameters do you think there should be if any?

And yes, my comments are pretty irrelevant. I'm ok with that, because I'm on here to converse with others during a somewhat dull holiday week. I'm not trying to change the world via a forum.

To your beggar example, I don't recall saying there should some sort of extreme punishment for a hungry person stealing. But we do have programs, such as welfare and food stamps, made specifically to prevent that situation from happening. However, if a person for some reason cannot get those services and must steal to survive, I feel like the judge presiding over the case might just make an exception.


As opposed to many pro-lifers, who want to "force" via law (is that specific enough for you?) a pregnant woman to birth a child she can't care for, which leads to food stamps/welfare (aka more taxpayer money) OR - as you mentioned above - she can steal to provide for the baby. But a single mother isn't going to get denied, so she won't have to steal

 

[john w]

You seem upset. Had a bad day?

Stumped me there.

More likely you are far more emotional about this subject than I, something I've seen before regarding abortion on TOL. It's amazing how nasty one can get when "arguing" from an emotional position. However, emotion (as Yoda said) clouds judgement. And I believe yours to be clouded a bit

More diversion, IMO, grunts, snorts...Weighty.

You never answered any of my questions. Let's flesh out what exactly your opinions are on abortion, then we can actually have a dialogue. As it currently stands, I have answered your questions honestly only to be assaulted by you. That's normally fine. But you won't even tell me what YOU think. That's a pretty cowardly way to argue. Should abortion be legal? If so, what parameters do you think there should be if any?

Made up. Emotional appeal. Do not confused your stupidity, with any alleged failure on my part to answer your question.

But what is illustrated above sums up nicely the issue I have with many pro-lifers. They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare....But what is illustrated above sums up nicely the issue I have with many pro-lifers. They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare.

Slower, Lamont:Laws, by definition, "force" an imposition of morality.

To your beggar example, I don't recall saying there should some sort of extreme punishment for a hungry person stealing. But we do have programs, such as welfare and food stamps, made specifically to prevent that situation from happening. However, if a person for some reason cannot get those services and must steal to survive, I feel like the judge presiding over the case might just make an exception.

"They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare."-you

Spin. Why do you want to force a poor beggar to starve to death, by not allowing him to steal, with your imposition of a law against theft?

See how that works?

As opposed to many pro-lifers, who want to "force" via law (is that specific enough for you?) a pregnant woman to birth a child she can't care for, which leads to food stamps/welfare (aka more taxpayer money) OR - as you mentioned above - she can steal to provide for the baby. But a single mother isn't going to get denied, so she won't have to steal

You missed it, Dummy. Why do you want the government, whom we/you elect, to "force," via law, laws against murder, rape, theft....?


Read it-"force." Laws, by definition, are forced/enforced.


No, Lamont, you do not have a problem with laws, being enorced/forced-that is a cop out. You have a problem with the pro-lifers view on the issue, and employ this false dichotomy, disguised in this deceptive "force" jazz.

Slower: Laws, by definition, are forced/enforced.


So your "force" argument is quite irrelevant. Anti abortion proponents have every right/obligation, to persuade others that abortion should be illegal-that is what laws do-they impose morality. It has NADA to do with "force"(straw man)-laws force/impose morality. Yet, you make an emotional, deceitful appeal, that others are "forcing" a poor woman............

 

[Greg Jennings]

Stumped me there.


More diversion, IMO, grunts, snorts...Weighty.








Made up. Emotional appeal. Do not confused your stupidity, with any alleged failure on my part to answer your question.




Slower, Lamont:Laws, by definition, "force" an imposition of morality.





"They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare."-you

Spin. Why do you want to force a poor beggar to starve to death, by not allowing him to steal, with your imposition of a law against theft?

See how that works?



You missed it, Dummy. Why do you want the government, whom we/you elect, to "force," via law, laws against murder, rape, theft....?


Read it-"force." Laws, by definition, are forced/enforced.


No, Lamont, you do not have a problem with laws, being enorced/forced-that is a cop out. You have a problem with the pro-lifers view on the issue, and employ this false dichotomy, disguised in this deceptive "force" jazz.

Slower: Laws, by definition, are forced/enforced.


So your "force" argument is quite irrelevant. Anti abortion proponents have every right/obligation, to persuade others that abortion should be illegal-that is what laws do-they impose morality. It has NADA to do with "force"(straw man)-laws force/impose morality. Yet, you make an emotional, deceitful appeal, that others are "forcing" a poor woman............

I think you're seizing upon words a tad too literally. Seems to be a common trend amongst very conservative Christians.

What in the world are you going on about? Everyone in my family holds a much more conservative position than I do regarding this, but I would never want a woman to terminate a pregnancy after 22 weeks out of concern for the now conscious human residing within.

I answered your stealing scenario above, but I guess in your rage typing you must've missed it. I said that we have programs here designed to help poor people. Since they exist, we can feel free to enforce the law regarding stealing against even poor people because they don't have to resort to it. And if there is some special circumstance that necessitates stealing, then a judge will look at the case individually and perhaps decide to throw it out.
The point in telling you that being: poor people here have the option to apply for social services, which relieves the need to steal goods. In a scenario where strong pro-lifers get their way (no abortion whatsoever), what is the option for pregnant women? They don't have an out. The "force" being applied in both scenarios is the same you're correct, BUT the "victim party" in your scenario has a way to cope. In mine, they don't. They are just screwed

Obviously, that's NOT how it's set up today. Most states limit abortion to the first two trimesters. That fits fairly neatly with my personal conclusion, so I don't have much of a problem with abortion how it is in most states currently.


I think I can draw from this dialogue (though not from your repeated question dodging) that you are staunchly anti-abortion. May I ask, would you make an exception in cases of A) rape or B) high danger to the mother's life?

 

[john w]

What in the world are you going on about? I am pro-life! Everyone in my family holds a much more conservative position than I do regarding this, but I would never want a woman to terminate a pregnancy after 22 weeks out of concern for the now conscious human residing within.

Spin...create a moving target....


You "argued:"

But what is illustrated above sums up nicely the issue I have with many pro-lifers. They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare....But what is illustrated above sums up nicely the issue I have with many pro-lifers. They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare.

Laws, by definition, are forced/enforced.

I know that is quite deep.

I answered your stealing scenario above, but I guess in your rage typing you must've missed it. I said that we have programs here designed to help poor people. Since they exist, we can feel free to enforce the law regarding stealing against even poor people because they don't have to resort to it. And if there is some special circumstance that necessitates stealing, then a judge will look at the case individually and perhaps decide to throw it out.
The point in telling you that being: poor people here have the option to apply for social services, which relieves the need to steal goods. In a scenario where strong pro-lifers get their way (no abortion whatsoever), what is the option for pregnant women? They don't have an out. The "force" being applied in both scenarios is the same you're correct, BUT the "victim party" in your scenario has a way to cope. In mine, they don't. They are just screwed

No, you did not-you side stepped it...dodged it....went off on a rabbit trail.....That is slick...real slick....The above is quite irrelevant to your "argument." I stay on topic....And my topic, is your "argument:"

But what is illustrated above sums up nicely the issue I have with many pro-lifers. They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare....But what is illustrated above sums up nicely the issue I have with many pro-lifers. They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare.

Why do you, through our government laws, want to force others to abide by these imposition of morality?

So your emotional appeal, of "pro-lifers" want to "force.................." jazz is a deceptive "argument."

You attempt to justify allowing an act, which many think is immoral, with an objection to the possible consequences of an imposition of preventing that said immoral act.

Hence, my poor beggar analogy/theft.

It is quite irrelevant-theft is wrong.There is no justification for it-that is a moral stand, and society enforces it, despite any possible undesirable consequences to the poor, if they are prohibited from stealing for food..........




Pro-lifers, some deluded Islamist.........................have every right/obligation to try to persuade society that a "fill in the blank" policy/law/act, is wrong, whether it is a abortion, rape, murder, theft.................................................., and attempt to have it changed. Laws are an imposition/"force"/enforcement of morality.

And yet you cry, "Stop it, you pro-lifers, with your forcing................................" blah blah....

That is a deceptive "argument."

Obviously, that's NOT how it's set up today. Most states limit abortion to the first two trimesters. That fits fairly neatly with my personal conclusion, so I don't have much of a problem with abortion how it is in most states currently.


I think I can draw from this dialogue (though not from your repeated question dodging) that you are staunchly anti-abortion. May I ask, would you make an exception in cases of A) rape or B) high danger to the mother's life?

Quite irrelevant. You "argued:"

But what is illustrated above sums up nicely the issue I have with many pro-lifers. They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare....But what is illustrated above sums up nicely the issue I have with many pro-lifers. They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare.

Why do you want to force your view on theft, murder,..........................on others?


See hows that works?


Stuff your "force" characterization, you place on pro-lifers, you deceiver. Laws, by definition, are an imposition of morality. You just don't like the pro-lifers's view, and are employing this emotional "force" argument, as subterfuge, that is quite irrelevant.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Spin...create a moving target....


You "argued:"




Laws, by definition, are forced/enforced.

I know that is quite deep.





No, you did not-you side steppedit...dodged it....went off on a rabbit trail.....That is slick...real slick....The above is quite irrelevant to your "argument." I stay on topic....And my topic, is your "argument:"



Why do you, through our government laws, want to force others to abide by these imposition of morality?

So your emotional appeal, of "pro-lifers" want to "force.................." jazz is a deceptive "argument."


Pro-lifers, some deluded Islamist.........................have every right/obligation to try to persuade society that a "fill in the blank" policy/law/act, is wrong, whether it is a abortion, rape, murder, theft.................................................., and attempt to have it changed. Laws are an imposition/"forec"/enforcement of morality.

And yet you cry, "Stop it, you pro=lifers, with your forcing................................" blah blah....

That is a deceptive "argument."


Quite irrelevant. You "argued:"




Why do you want to force your view on theft, murder,..........................on others?


See hows that works?


Stuff yoour "force" characterization, you place on pro-lifers, you deceiver. Laws, by definition, are an imposition of morality. You just don't like the pro-lifers's view, and are employing this emotional "force" argument, as subterfuge, that is quite irrelevant.

I'm not answering you until you actually answer any of my questions. You are just repeating the same nonsense over and over again that has been addressed by me in three straight posts to you. You're rambling. Take 5, and get back to me if you feel like being an adult

 

[john w]

I'm not answering you until you actually answer any of my questions.

1. Slower-I did answer them-they are quite irrelevant. Do not confuse your lack of reading comprehension skills, with any alleged failure on my part to "answer." I stay on topic-your "argument."

2. Chapter, verse, where I am required to answer any/all questions, especially from a deceiver, such as yourself. I will wait.....for an eternity.

You are just repeating the same nonsense over and over again that has been addressed by me in three straight posts to you. You're rambling. Take 5, and get back to me if you feel like being an adult

Nope-I stay on topic. Nice stock cliche-standard fare.....You are beginning to bore me.

But what is illustrated above sums up nicely the issue I have with many pro-lifers. They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare....But what is illustrated above sums up nicely the issue I have with many pro-lifers. They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare.

Why do you want to force your view on theft, murder,..........................on others?


See hows that works?

I know, I know....It's just your opinion, and you are not responsible for the laws in our country....

Lamont the Dummy.

 

[Greg Jennings]

1. Slower-I did answer them-they are quite irrelevant. Do not confuse your lack of reading comprehension skills, with any alleged failure on my part to "answer." I stay on topic-your "argument."

2. Chapter, verse, where I am required to answer any/all questions, especially from a deceiver, such as yourself. I will wait.....for an eternity.




Nope-I stay on topic. Nice stock cliche-standard fare.....You are beginning to bore me.




Why do you want to force your view on theft, murder,..........................on others?


See hows that works?

I know, I know....It's just your opinion, and you are not responsible for the laws in our country....

Lamont the Dummy.

Lol I've never been called a "deceiver" before. Sounds like something they charged people with in the inquisition or something
I think you're confusing my bewilderment at your conversational skills with stupidity. But what would a dummy know, right? :chuckle:

Still no answers. Still more rambling. I'm starting to question your state of mind.

You're never going to lay out your position. You're just going to hide behind petty keyboard insults. I feel sorry that substantive conversation is beyond you. Truly


Anyway, as explained twice previously, "forcing" my views on murder/rape/violent crime is not the same as "forcing" my views on abortion. For one, forcing violent criminals to be punished is not something many people take issue with, the reason being that they EARNED it. Tell me, what crime did a pregnant woman commit to open her to the same "force" punishment that s violent criminal receives? Just like your stealing example, this one falls short.

What names will you call me next? I can't wait

 

[john w]

Lol

This is not "Teen Magazine"-it is Theologyonline.com

I've never been called a "deceiver" before.

You really need to get out into the world more, then, deceiver.

Sounds like something they charged people with in the inquisition or something

Sounds like another one of your "opinions." Thanks for contributing to TOL, with your brilliant insights, and checkin' in.

I think you're confusing my bewilderment at your conversational skills with stupidity. But what would a dummy know, right? :chuckle:

Still no answers. Still more rambling. I'm starting to question your state of mind.

1 Slower-I did answer them-they are quite irrelevant. Do not confuse your lack of reading comprehension skills, with any alleged failure on my part to "answer." I stay on topic-your "argument."

2. Chapter, verse, where I am required to answer any/all questions, especially from a deceiver, such as yourself. I will wait.....for an eternity.


Not a peep.

More stock cliches, grunts, snorts, emotional "ramblings."

You're never going to lay out your position. You're just going to hide behind petty keyboard insults. I feel sorry that substantive conversation is beyond you. Truly

The inevitable "Accusation of hate....You are so mean spirited/insulting" technique, while alluding to your, obviously, so non condescending, caring attitude.


Seen it before. Boring.

 

[Greg Jennings]

This is not "Teen Magazine"-it is Theologyonline.com

The guy constantly name-calling is now saying I'm immature? I'll let that settle

You really need to get out into the world more, then, deceiver.

I have. I'd wager a bit more than yourself, but who knows? But wherever you're from seems backwards, to say the least.

Sounds like another one of your "opinions." Thanks for contributing to TOL, with your brilliant insights, and checkin' in.

Thank you. I appreciate your contribution as well

1 Slower-I did answer them-they are quite irrelevant. Do not confuse your lack of reading comprehension skills, with any alleged failure on my part to "answer." I stay on topic-your "argument."

2. Chapter, verse, where I am required to answer any/all questions, especially from a deceiver, such as yourself. I will wait.....for an eternity.


Not a peep.

More stock cliches, grunts, snorts, emotional "ramblings."



The inevitable "Accusation of hate....You are so mean spirited/insulting" technique, while alluding to your, obviously, so non condescending, caring attitude.


Seen it before. Boring.

Conveniently left this out. LOLOLOLOLOLZ

"Anyway, as explained twice previously, "forcing" my views on murder/rape/violent crime is not the same as "forcing" my views on abortion. For one, forcing violent criminals to be punished is not something many people take issue with, the reason being that they EARNED it. Tell me, what crime did a pregnant woman commit to open her to the same "force" punishment that s violent criminal receives? Just like your stealing example, this one falls short."

Have a response? Let me guess....."you're stupid and a teenager"?

And since you admit that you won't answer any question I ask, as I am a "deceiver" :chuckle:, why exactly did you even engage? To vent a little?

 

[john w]

Conveniently left this out. LOLOLOLOLOLZ

"Anyway, as explained twice previously, "forcing" my views on murder/rape/violent crime is not the same as "forcing" my views on abortion. For one, forcing violent criminals to be punished is not something many people take issue with, the reason being that they EARNED it. Tell me, what crime did a pregnant woman commit to open her to the same "force" punishment that s violent criminal receives? Just like your stealing example, this one falls short."

Spin, deception:

But what is illustrated above sums up nicely the issue I have with many pro-lifers. They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare....But what is illustrated above sums up nicely the issue I have with many pro-lifers. They want to force a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of, then complain that too many single mothers are on welfare.

Translated: Even if abortion is immoral, let us kill the unborn, let the mother kill the innocent, and that is not evil, because that would be an imposition on the poor mother, and I will, in deception, then accuse those evil pro-lifers of "force(ing) a poor mother to birth s child that she can't take care of,"

what crime did a pregnant woman commit

It is called murdering the innocent(by definition).

No "imposition" on the murdered little one, eh?


That is wickeness, and a deceptive argument.

Have a response? Let me guess....."you're stupid and a teenager"?

Correct, teenie bop/Dummy. My evidence? Your "posts."

And since you admit that you won't answer any question I ask, as I am a "deceiver" :chuckle:, why exactly did you even engage? To vent a little?

1 I made no such admission, false accuser-Slower-I did answer them-they are quite irrelevant. Do not confuse your lack of reading comprehension skills, with any alleged failure on my part to "answer." I stay on topic-your "argument."

2. Chapter, verse, where I am required to answer any/all questions, especially from a deceiver, such as yourself. I will wait.....for an eternity.


Still not a peep. The punk cannot quote one scripture, to support his assertion. NADA.

forcing violent criminals to be punished is not something many people take issue with

Translated: Consensus determines morality, what is right, what is wrong. Not many people took issue with slavery, years ago. Not many Christ rejecting Islam proponents take issue with suicide bombings.

And?


Ssssssssssssssssssssssss......